BF2S Forums Why are Americans so obsessed with People obsessed with America?

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

but they were friendly with the nazis until they invaded.  And the area that the USSR "saved", well, they did call it an iron curtain for a reason.

Firendly?  I'd say they were not attacking each other until Hitler went nuts, and invaded Russia.  You must admit that Russians made most of the dirty work.  They smashed Hitler and therefore Hitler lost the war.  The other Allies helped too, but Russians made the biggest effort IMO.

only when their sovereignty was threatened.  Stalin hated the political ideology of the rest of the western nations as much as he hated nazism.  He was a tyrant.  No worse than hitler.  He didnt occupy eastern europe for reconstruction or influence after the war.  He was an expansionist.  He didnt fight the germans for the sake of saving those nations under their grip, he fought for the survival of his regime and exportation of the workers revolution.

SOviet troops in eastern europe are no better than nazi troops in eastern europe.  they were conquerors.

I never argued his motivations.  Stalin was a dictator.  I just said that the Russians did a great part defeating Hitler.

Things I appreciate about America

1.- rock & roll
2.- jazz
3.- csi
4.- Civilization IV
5.- Supreme commander
6.- CNN
7.- NY times
8.- Harpers
9.- the new yorker
10.- New York
11- L.A.
12.- Contemporary POrn
13.- Chicago

Last edited by RAVAGE (2007-07-07 18:19:06)

blademaster wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

only when their sovereignty was threatened.  Stalin hated the political ideology of the rest of the western nations as much as he hated nazism.  He was a tyrant.  No worse than hitler.  He didnt occupy eastern europe for reconstruction or influence after the war.  He was an expansionist.  He didnt fight the germans for the sake of saving those nations under their grip, he fought for the survival of his regime and exportation of the workers revolution.

SOviet troops in eastern europe are no better than nazi troops in eastern europe.  they were conquerors.

I never argued his motivations.  Stalin was a dictator.  I just said that the Russians did a great part defeating Hitler.

I concur, we entered the war late, and we did not merely lose as many casualties as  Russia did at the time, also Russians managed to push Germany all the way to Berlin.

but then again we lost more soldiers than France or the UK did during the 4 years we were involved.  We need to stop looking at casualty figures like theyre a proper way to gauge a nations war effort.  Stupid fucking soviet doctrine "Quantity has a quality of its own"  what a load of bullshit.

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

blademaster wrote:

I concur, we entered the war late, and we did not merely lose as many casualties as  Russia did at the time, also Russians managed to push Germany all the way to Berlin.

but then again we lost more soldiers than France or the UK did during the 4 years we were involved.  We need to stop looking at casualty figures like theyre a proper way to gauge a nations war effort.  Stupid fucking soviet doctrine "Quantity has a quality of its own"  what a load of bullshit.

When we talk about the efforts made by Russia, we don't only look at casualty figures suffered by them, but also the casualties received by the Germans courtesy of Russia.  How do you measure quality in a war?  You have figures and battles, and you can judge according to that.  I don't say quantity is over quality, but you can't measure quality in a war, at least not in an objective way IMO.

I see what you're saying.  Regardless of how you got there, once your there it doesnt matter.  Human wave tactics, although highly costly to the soviets, got the job done, so to speak.  But i was referring to the casualty count that so many people like bringing up.  It doesnt matter how many people the USSR lost or what not.  The point I was making was to not bring up casualty figures in a WW2 debate.  France was completely overrun but yet, America lost more soldiers.  Just because the soviet union lost a gazillion soldiers in their race towards berlin, doesnt necessarily mean that they took the brunt of the war effort. 


"Quantity has a quality of its own" -Lenin

I threw that in to demonstrate the idiotic land warfare doctrine the Soviet Union had during the cold war and ww2.  the reason why they had so many casualties was their belief in overwhelming numbers instead of good quality training and equipment.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-07-08 12:38:17)

Honestly....think about this. If America did not enter the war. Would Germany and its allies been defeated? I dont think so, especially the pacific theatre. Japan would have ruled completely. If America doesn't join, the war would have been lost. Now, if Russia sat back and accepted defeat, could the war have been won? No, especially in the European theater. This was a world war and it took an effort by the world to win it. We all had a piece big or small in the victory. Why argue about who did what or who lost what...without each other it would have failed.

CameronPoe wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Some Americans seem so concerned about every tiny comment about America.  Then, we have people thinking that the World has this obsession with America.  Why do you think is that?

Do you wanna know why Serge? It's because they care about what the outside world thinks of them (well the ones that realise that there is an outside world anyway). Touching.

Isn't that what he is asking about?

Last edited by .Genera|-Idea. (2007-07-08 14:54:59)

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

but then again we lost more soldiers than France or the UK did during the 4 years we were involved.  We need to stop looking at casualty figures like theyre a proper way to gauge a nations war effort.  Stupid fucking soviet doctrine "Quantity has a quality of its own"  what a load of bullshit.

When we talk about the efforts made by Russia, we don't only look at casualty figures suffered by them, but also the casualties received by the Germans courtesy of Russia.  How do you measure quality in a war?  You have figures and battles, and you can judge according to that.  I don't say quantity is over quality, but you can't measure quality in a war, at least not in an objective way IMO.

I see what you're saying.  Regardless of how you got there, once your there it doesnt matter.  Human wave tactics, although highly costly to the soviets, got the job done, so to speak.  But i was referring to the casualty count that so many people like bringing up.  It doesnt matter how many people the USSR lost or what not.  The point I was making was to not bring up casualty figures in a WW2 debate.  France was completely overrun but yet, America lost more soldiers.  Just because the soviet union lost a gazillion soldiers in their race towards berlin, doesnt necessarily mean that they took the brunt of the war effort. 


"Quantity has a quality of its own" -Lenin

I threw that in to demonstrate the idiotic land warfare doctrine the Soviet Union had during the cold war and ww2.  the reason why they had so many casualties was their belief in overwhelming numbers instead of good quality training and equipment.

I understand what you say.  But, I still think they were the main factor to defeat Hitler.

sergeriver wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Honestly....think about this. If America did not enter the war. Would Germany and its allies been defeated? I dont think so, especially the pacific theatre. Japan would have ruled completely. If America doesn't join, the war would have been lost. Now, if Russia sat back and accepted defeat, could the war have been won? No, especially in the European theater. This was a world war and it took an effort by the world to win it. We all had a piece big or small in the victory. Why argue about who did what or who lost what...without each other it would have failed.

America played a very significant role in WWII, but I think the soviets could have won the war by themselves.

Maybe in the European theater but the Pacific? HUH.....I highly doubt it. It took a superior navy/ air force to win back the pacific.

Anyhow...my point is that it doesnt matter who did what, how or why at this point. The point is that it happened...we won..or did I miss something? Arguing over something that has already happened is beating a really, really, really dead horse. We all took part, the war was won with the help of each other and the war turned out with the proper outcome. Everyone lost a lot, many men died. My grandfather fought on the frontlines in France, Belgium and according to his letters that I have "Somewhere" and received 2 purple hearts for his efforts. I don't  thinks he would be concerned about "ifs" or be concerned about a lot of stuff being talked about here. The war is over....so lets start a campfire and sing songs.

Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2007-07-08 15:31:56)

gargameld wrote:

if americans werent so bloody loud and obnoxious....yes you are all...even the ones that arent are.....then it would be harder to think your all a bunch of tossers.....lets face it you make it pretty easy for us

How does this post help anything? Pretty broad generalization about Americans....should I start saying that all Germans are Nazis, that all Arabs are terrorists, that all Europeans have bad teeth? Of course not! Try something else and show some common sense.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Honestly....think about this. If America did not enter the war. Would Germany and its allies been defeated? I dont think so, especially the pacific theatre. Japan would have ruled completely. If America doesn't join, the war would have been lost. Now, if Russia sat back and accepted defeat, could the war have been won? No, especially in the European theater. This was a world war and it took an effort by the world to win it. We all had a piece big or small in the victory. Why argue about who did what or who lost what...without each other it would have failed.

America played a very significant role in WWII, but I think the soviets could have won the war by themselves.

Maybe in the European theater but the Pacific? HUH.....I highly doubt it. It took a superior navy/ air force to win back the pacific.

Anyhow...my point is that it doesnt matter who did what, how or why at this point. The point is that it happened...we won..or did I miss something? Arguing over something that has already happened is beating a really, really, really dead horse. We all took part, the war was won with the help of each other and the war turned out with the proper outcome. Everyone lost a lot, many men died. My grandfather fought on the frontlines in France, Belgium and according to his letters that I have "Somewhere" and received 2 purple hearts for his efforts. I don't  thinks he would be concerned about "ifs" or be concerned about a lot of stuff being talked about here. The war is over....so lets start a campfire and sing songs.

Well, who knows what whould have happened if the Russians would have defeated Hitler by themselves without the US.  Maybe things would have turned worse, and today Europe would be speaking Russian.

Americans are obsessed with Transformers and Iphones, not foreigners and their obsessions with America.

fadedsteve wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

I believe that is something to do with the fact that a lot of people are quick to critize the US, but forget or are not interested in what the country has done to help the world. Its a lack of appreciation thing IMO. I'd be ticked off too if everyone went on a mission to bring up everything wrong with my country, wouldn't you?

right on! +1

and seregiver. . . .  Who gave the Russians and Brits supplies while they were getting their nuts kicked in??? Oh yea that was the USA!!!

Russia got an enormous boost from the USA if you forget! The Russians got food and other supplies that helped sustain their counter attacks against the Germans. . . . Granted the Germans made a huge mistake attacking before winter, but the facts remain Russia was hanging on by a thread. . . . .

Same goes for the Brits. . . . We lost American lives supplying the Russians and the Brits before we even entered the war!!!

Everyone knows.

Get the point yet? No one wants to hear your shameless US-promoting rhetoric.